Science – Mark Maynardhttp://markmaynard.com
For all your Mark Maynard needs.Fri, 09 Dec 2016 15:01:16 +0000en-UShourly1Mike Pence, who believes smoking doesn’t kill, global warming is a myth, and there’s no such thing as evolution, may become the most powerful Vice President in American historyhttp://markmaynard.com/2016/07/mike-pence-who-believes-smoking-doesnt-kill-global-warming-is-a-myth-and-theres-no-such-thing-as-evolution-may-become-the-most-powerful-vice-president-in-american-history/
http://markmaynard.com/2016/07/mike-pence-who-believes-smoking-doesnt-kill-global-warming-is-a-myth-and-theres-no-such-thing-as-evolution-may-become-the-most-powerful-vice-president-in-american-history/#commentsThu, 21 Jul 2016 21:30:16 +0000http://markmaynard.com/?p=38753

I understand Donald Trump and Mike Pence are scheduled to appear in a joint interview on 60 Minutes tonight – their first. There are so many questions to ask them of course, but one that I want answered, perhaps more than any other, might surprise you – “do you believe in evolution?”

I can hear the cackles from the political establishment – such a niche topic, so trivial, so off topic. Some might consider it a “gotcha” question. Surely this couldn’t be as important as probing what Pence thinks about the multiple published reports that Trump almost dumped him at the last minute, or the very odd rally yesterday that officially announced Pence as the vice presidential choice. Serious-minded journalists will want to ask serious questions concerning the recent terror attacks, or the attempted coup in Turkey, or about Pence’s record on LGBT and women’s rights. And well they should.

But I also firmly believe it is long past time that we inject science into the national debate. Perhaps one of the reasons why we haven’t traditionally was that it never seemed so controversial. Now, sadly, it is. Pence has equivocated in the past on whether he believes in evolution, particularly in response to a tough, fair, and a bit incredulous line of questioning from my good friend Chris Matthews. We need to ask him again.

Science is central to so many of the issues facing this country, and when it comes to understanding life on earth everything begins with acknowledging evolution. We want leaders to come up with plans to fight diseases like Ebola and Zika, to protect us from bioterrorism, to promote agriculture, drug development, our biotech industries and so much more. We want to keep our place as the world leader in biomedical research – with all the economic advantages that has afforded us, not to mention the betterment of human life. The scientists who are going to help us do all this take evolution as a given. Much of their work doesn’t make sense without it.

And after bearing down on evolution, I would ask Trump and Pence about climate change. If the best minds in the Pentagon are thinking about how a changing climate might very well lead to conflict, shouldn’t we have a Commander in Chief who acknowledges reality?

If this was just about the specific scientific topics listed above, that would be sufficient. But asking about evolution also is a shorthand for exploring a person’s worldview. There are opinions and there are facts. On the first, fair minded people can disagree. On the latter, we undermine empiricism at our peril. A fidelity to reason, to impartial data, to the power of learning and observation is what led mankind out of the Dark Ages and onto a path towards enlightenment. It was this path that inspired our Founding Fathers in their vision for our nation. And much of the social progress we have made as a country since that time was due to reason winning out over ignorance.
I am not sure if I will have a chance this election season to sit down with any of the candidates for national office. But if I do, I intend to ask about their science policy. If it were up to me, we would dedicate part of one of the presidential debates to science. But I am not going to hold my breath…

And, given the story the broke yesterday about how Trump, if elected, may be planning to place his Vice President in charge of all policy, both foreign and domestic, while he focuses on “making America great again”, it becomes even more of an issue. We aren’t just being asked to vote for the least qualified Presidential candidate in American history, but we’re being asked to vote for a candidate who, upon being elected, would likely hand control over to a man who, it would seem, has less appreciation for science and facts than even George W Bush. [When Donald Trump Jr. reached out to John Katich on behalf of his father to offer the position of Vice President, Trump reportedly asked, “Do you want to be the most powerful Vice President in history? When asked what he meant, the younger Trump responded that his father had no interest in either domestic of foreign policy and would leave that to his Vice President.]

For what it’s worth, it’s not just Trump’s running mate that’s anti-science. I know it’s not exactly a scientific study, but, yesterday, when the band Third Eye Blind played at the Republican National Convention, they introduced their set by saying, “Raise your hand if you believe in science,” and no one raised their hand. They then proceeded to play none of their hits, pissing off the attending Republicans no end.

]]>http://markmaynard.com/2016/07/mike-pence-who-believes-smoking-doesnt-kill-global-warming-is-a-myth-and-theres-no-such-thing-as-evolution-may-become-the-most-powerful-vice-president-in-american-history/feed/7“Art of Engineering for Girls” series to begin this Sunday in Ypsilantihttp://markmaynard.com/2015/10/art-of-engineering-for-girls-series-to-begin-this-sunday-in-ypsilanti/
http://markmaynard.com/2015/10/art-of-engineering-for-girls-series-to-begin-this-sunday-in-ypsilanti/#commentsThu, 29 Oct 2015 02:46:45 +0000http://markmaynard.com/?p=35605When I talked with science educator Cassie Byrd earlier this year as part of the Ypsi Immigration Interview project, we discussed the possibility, given her interest in teaching girls about science, and her experience at the Exploratorium in San Francisco, that she might get more involved locally with FLY Children’s Art Center. Well, I just recently learned that Cassie has done just that. She’s developed series of workshops for the FLY Creativity Lab, directed at 10 to 12 year-old girls… Following is our very brief conversation about what’s she’s planning.

CASSIE: That’s right. I’ll be co-teaching (with FLY’s art teacher Allida Warn) a series of three workshops that explore the intersection of science, art, and engineering.

MARK: Three workshops over three days?

CASSIE: Yes, the three workshops will take place on three consecutive Sundays beginning this Sunday, November 1.

MARK: So, can you give us an example of the kind of stuff you’ll be doing?

CASSIE: The first week, we’ll be exploring the physics of motion. We’ll look at types of motion (linear and rotational, as examples), how simple machines (levers, gears, and pulleys as examples) can change the direction or magnitude of force of a particular motion, and then putting all of that science knowledge together to create art and engineer a toy called “a water bottle flywheel”. The second week of the workshop, we’ll explore materials and structures, investigating what gives a structure strength and stability. And, the last week, we put it all together in an engineering design challenge.

MARK: When we last talked, you mentioned how you like to work with girls between the ages of 10 and 12, as that’s a critical time in their educational development… Actually, I’ve got a quote from you here, from our earlier interview…

In my work, I try to focus on girls between the ages of 10 -12 — hopefully catching their interest before they self-select out of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). Some key strategies for getting, and keeping, girls interested in STEM are:

INTRODUCE HER TO ROLE MODELS: If I asked you to describe the first image that pops into your mind when I say the word, “scientist”, what did you see? Many will describe the ubiquitous white male, with crazy hair, wearing a labcoat, probably blowing something up in a lab image. This stereotype belief holds true for girls too. Because of this, there is a disconnect between the descriptive stereotype that scientists must look like that crazy guy and how girls view themselves. So, we must introduce girls to many types of scientists with whom they can identify. “If she can see it, she can be it.”

GIVE HER OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE IN STEM EXPERIENCES: Take advantage of girls’ interest in STEM from a young age – visit science centers and other informal learning environments, do activities at home that make the connection between STEM and everyday life (talk about the science or math of cooking while making dinner, explain a household or automotive repair to her, let her tinker with you – gaining hands-on experience with tools), or encourage her to sign up for a STEM related afterschool or summer program.

ENCOURAGE GROWTH MINDSET: Research out of Stanford University by Dr. Carol Dweck found that people could be described as having a fixed mindset (that their intelligence or talents were fixed) or a growth mindset (that their intelligence or talents can be developed through dedication and hard work). When we give girls opportunities to succeed and to fail, we create a space for them to learn from failure, which can help them develop a growth mindset. This piece gets at the heart of the “I’m not good at math” problem and paves the way for her to develop perseverance, which is critical for success in STEM fields.

Would I be right to assume that these three elements will be present in the curriculum you’ve put together for this series of workshops for 10, 11 and 12 year-old girls?

CASSIE: Absolutely. The workshop series is an opportunity for girls to explore the connections of physics phenomena to everyday toys and tools. Through exposure to the Engineering Design Process, the students will see that it is absolutely essential to learn from failure.

MARK: I like that FLY is evolving to look at creativity more broadly, incorporating science and technology along with art. I’m not an educator, but it seems to me there’s a huge opportunity when you leverage art… I mean, as much as I like STEM, I think that the A is important. It not only grounds it, but it provides a relatively easy point of entry for kids that might not otherwise gravitate toward science and technology.

CASSIE: Agreed. We’re seeing a movement in higher ed of new courses and programs that blend art and engineering (such as UM’s ArtsEngine). And, in the digital realm, we’re seeing art and engineering intersect to push the limits of graphical user interfaces and create new technologies (such as James Cameron’s 3D tech used to create the film “Avatar”).

MARK: How many kids are you hoping to get in the class, and how much does the series cost?

CASSIE: We’re hoping to have around 18 students in the series. The cost is $150, and there are scholarships available. Parents should send an email to FLY (info@flyartcenter.org) if they’re interested.

[The image at the top of the page was taken of my daughter at last year’s Science Olympiad. She’d just competed in the rocket competition when this was taken. It seemed appropriate for this post.]

]]>http://markmaynard.com/2015/10/art-of-engineering-for-girls-series-to-begin-this-sunday-in-ypsilanti/feed/3On Asses, Asteroids, Pop Culture and Sciencehttp://markmaynard.com/2014/11/on-asses-and-asteroids-2/
http://markmaynard.com/2014/11/on-asses-and-asteroids-2/#commentsFri, 14 Nov 2014 04:29:57 +0000http://markmaynard.com/?p=31180I hate popular culture. Yesterday, when I read about the European Space Agency’s Philae lander successfully touching down on Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, after traveling though space for over ten years, making it the first spacecraft to ever land on a comet nucleus, all I could think was, “It’s kind of just sitting there on that comet as it’s hurdling though space, like that champaign glass on Kim Kardashian’s ass.”

It’s not a thought that I’m particularly proud of, but it stuck with me all day long. I’d try to work, but my mind kept drifting back to the Philae lander and this champaign glass, wondering about the similarities between the two, both precariously balanced in space, and drawing the attention of everyone on earth.

“How many scientists,” I wondered, “did it take to calculate the approach, and figure out how to set it down just right? …And was the Philae lander team even bigger?”

I should note right up front that I have nothing against Kim Kardashian’s ass, or the place that it holds in American popular culture. I’m sure that it’s a fine ass, and I’m happy that it brings joy to people during these darks times in which we live. What bothers me is the fact that I know that it exists, without ever having sought out information on its existence, without ever having watched an episode of Kardashian’s television show, without ever having visited a website dedicated to the documentation of epic asses. I hate living in a world where, try as you might, there are some things that you can’t avoid. I don’t like knowing the comings and goings of Justin Bieber. I don’t like knowing when Lindsay Lohan drinks. I don’t like knowing that the Kradashian family exits. But there are these things that are just beyond our control, these enormous cultural entities circling us like low orbit satellites.

And, over the past 24 hours, though no fault of my own, I’ve been bombarded by Kim Kardashian’s ass, as everyone in the media struggled to find a new way to justify their interest, and spin it as something other than prurient. Literally every other story in my news feed had to do with the public display of this reality star’s large, oiled ass, as though it were something of historic significance. And, at the same time, buried between these various stories, if you could draw your attention to it, you saw these beautiful, little glimpses of Philae lander miraculously touching down.

The juxtaposition of the two stories, at least for me, was overwhelming. And I couldn’t stop drawing inferences about our country and our place in history. “The Philae lander wasn’t launched from the United States,” I found myself thinking. “It was a product of the European Space Agency. Kardashian, though, is ours, and she’s the one blowing up the internet.” It’s kind of sobering, don’t you think?

…News of the event caught MSU’s scientific community largely by surprise. Creation Summit secured a room at the university’s business school through a student religious group, but the student group did not learn about the details of the program—or the sometimes provocative talk titles—until later, says MSU zoologist Fred Dyer. The talk titles led Dyer to suspect that the student group was not involved in planning the conference, he says, prompting him to look into its origins.

Creation Summit sought to hold the event at MSU because “four of our Board members live there in Michigan,” wrote Mike Smith, the group’s executive director, in an e-mail to Science Insider. “We hope to have conferences on campuses throughout the country, but ya gotta start somewhere.”

Creation Summit is “not overtly evangelistic,” Smith wrote. But “we hope to pave the way for evangelism (for the other campus ministries) by presenting the scientific evidence for intelligent design. Once students realize they’re created beings, and not the product of natural selection, they’re much more open to the Gospel, to the message of God’s love & forgiveness.”

MSU has a prominent community of evolutionary biologists. In addition to Lenski, it is the home campus of biologist Robert Pennock, who provided high-profile testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a 2005 federal court case that produced a ruling against the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. MSU is also the lead partner in the BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action, a multiuniversity effort funded by the National Science Foundation that pursues a wide range of evolution-related research and education efforts.

Some leaders of MSU’s evolutionary biology community are urging their colleagues to simply ignore the event, predicting that any engagement and debate will be fruitless. “In my opinion, this event will be just another forgettable blip in the long history of antiscience, antievolution screeds,” Lenski says…

While the provocateur in me appreciates Bergman’s attempt to popularize the phrase “Nazi Darwinian Worldview” in hopes of furthering his political objectives, it just doesn’t stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. I mean, I get where he’s coming from. I get that he’d like to suggest that mass-extermination, school shootings and the like are what you’re sure to get if you question the infallible word of God as conveyed through the Bible, but there isn’t really any evidence of that. Sure, Hitler may have deluded himself that what he was doing wasn’t evil based upon his understanding of Darwin’s theories, but that doesn’t mean that Darwin is responsible for the extermination of millions any more than the Beatles are responsible for the crimes of the Manson Family or J.D. Salinger for the murder of John Lennon. Millions and millions of people accept the fact that life evolved on this planet, and they’ve done so without calling for the extermination of religious minorities. Not just that, but many of them actually profess to be deeply religious. Take, for example, Pope Francis, who just made his feelings on evolution known this past weekend when he said, When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so.” This isn’t about good versus evil. This is about truth versus fear. And Gerald Bergman is on the wrong side of history.

One last thing… As our friend Doug Skinner just reminded me, “Hitler never mentioned Darwin. He did, however, call Henry Ford his ‘inspiration’.”

According to the research of Harvard’s David Haig, it’s conceivable that babies evolved to cry at night not necessarily because they need to be fed, but because, by doing so, they could well delay the arrival of siblings who would invariably compete for scarce resources.

In an attempt to explain why babies, especially those that are breastfed, begin crying more at night upon turning 18 months of age, Haig, an evolutionary biologist, has suggested that it might be in order to wake their mothers, thus prolonging lactational amenorrhea – the temporary postnatal infertility that is known to occur in nursing mothers.

As others have pointed out, there may be other factors at play. For instance, it could be argued that young children kept closer to their parents at night my have a better chance at survival, irrespective of whether or not the side effect is fewer siblings. Regardless, though, I just love thinking about this stuff. And Haig’s theory makes total sense to me… Of course, it also makes total sense to me that babies may just scream at night in order to keep their parents from having intercourse, in hopes of breaking them up, so that, in subsequent years, they might have twice the number of birthday parties, and Christmases with their birth parents and their respective new mates.

[Haig’s work, which was recently published in the journal Evolution, Medicine and Public Health, can be found here.]

]]>http://markmaynard.com/2014/04/do-cock-blocking-babies-have-an-evolutionary-advantage/feed/9Geocentrism, anti-Semitism, and the role of Kate Mulgrew in helping Robert Sungenis to roll back the Enlightenmenthttp://markmaynard.com/2014/04/geocentrism-anti-semitism-the-work-of-robert-sungenis-and-the-role-of-kate-mulgrew/
http://markmaynard.com/2014/04/geocentrism-anti-semitism-the-work-of-robert-sungenis-and-the-role-of-kate-mulgrew/#commentsWed, 09 Apr 2014 03:37:53 +0000http://markmaynard.com/?p=29014Kate Mulgrew is a terrible person.

I know I shouldn’t be surprised. After all, we know that so-called Young Earth Creationists are out there, spreading the belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old. And we know that there are people who actually believe that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, and that evolution doesn’t exist. So why should it be any surprise to learn that there are people out there who believe that God created the earth at the center of the universe? I suppose we should just be thankful that we haven’t yet regressed to the point where a majority of us once again believe that the earth is flat, and that the sun is a golden chariot driven across the heavens by a god.

As for Mulgrew, I realize that she probably just did this for the money, without looking into the men behind it, but, at some point, I feel as though you have to take responsibility for your actions as an adult. And I’m not inclined to give her a pass for this just because she wanted the paycheck. The anti-science movement taking root in America is very real threat to the future of humanity, and we need to do whatever we can to stop it, even if it means calling out actresses like Mulgrew who we might otherwise respect. I can forgive a celebrity who does an ad for something stupid because he or she wants to make an extra million bucks, but I think you cross a line when you start helping ultra-conservative religious fanatics roll back the Enlightenment.

One last thing, don’t be surprised if there are strange notes left in the comments section that don’t quite made sense. You see, I have a weird history when it comes to Mulgrew, and I expect, by bringing her up today, I may reopen some old wounds.

It all started about six months ago, when I made an offhand comment about her on Facebook. It’s a long story, but let’s just say that some people got the impression that I was calling her ugly, when, in fact, I was just noting my dislike of the short-lived 1979 mystery series in which she starred. (According to my friend Peter Falk, the program was produced by the network against his wishes in order to squeeze a little more revenue from the Columbo franchise during a time when he’d left television to work in film.) Anyway, a photo of Murgrew, in character as the woman she portrays in the Netflix series Orange is the New Black, popped up in my newsfeed one day, and I reposted it with a comment about how no one could ever convince me that my favorite television detective would have married her. And this in turn led to a lot of people accusing me of being superficial, etc. I tried to explain myself, and say that the image had nothing to do with my comment, and I would have said the same thing even if she’d been younger, etc., but it was too late. No one wanted to hear what I had to say. I’d shown myself, in their eyes, to be a man who can’t appreciate the beauty of a mature woman, or whatever, and that was that. (In truth, I’m just an obsessive Columbo fan who believes somewhat strongly that, despite all of his comments to the contrary, he never had a wife at all.) So, if you see a weird mix of comments, some from geocentrists and some from women defending Mulgrew’s beauty, that’s what’s going on.

update:Mulgrew apparently released a comment on Facebook today. “I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism,” the actress said. “More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused.”

]]>http://markmaynard.com/2014/04/geocentrism-anti-semitism-the-work-of-robert-sungenis-and-the-role-of-kate-mulgrew/feed/13St. Patrick’s Day is stupid… Today should be Make Out with a Scientist Dayhttp://markmaynard.com/2014/03/scientists-discover-first-tremors-of-the-big-bang-proving-among-other-things-that-the-earth-is-more-than-6000-years-old/
http://markmaynard.com/2014/03/scientists-discover-first-tremors-of-the-big-bang-proving-among-other-things-that-the-earth-is-more-than-6000-years-old/#commentsTue, 18 Mar 2014 02:57:27 +0000http://markmaynard.com/?p=28620Proving once again that scientists are totally awesome, researchers discover first tremors of the big bang, proving, among other things, that the earth is more than 6,000 years old…

A few days ago word came out that a scientific discovery of enormous magnitude had been made, and today we know what it was. Scientists studying cosmic microwaves at the South Pole BICEP2facility, it would appear, have, for the first time ever, captured images of gravitational waves, or “ripples in space-time.” The story would be awesome in and of itself, as it gives us insight into what have been called the “first tremors of the Big Bang,” but the brilliant folks at Stanford took things one step further and added an incredibly touching human element. They sent a film crew along with Assistant Professor Chao-Lin Kuo, one of the scientists behind the discovery, to the home of Professor Andrei Linde as they broke the news to him that his long held cosmic inflation theory had finally been proven. It’s truly one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen.

At the end of the piece, when Linde reflects that he’d thought that perhaps he’d believed this theory of his, “just because it is beautiful,” it almost brought a tear to my eye.

Here, courtesy of the New York Times, is the theory of cosmic inflation in layman’s terms: “The theory proposes that, less than a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Tiny ripples in the violently expanding mass eventually grew into the large-scale structures of the universe.”

And I meant what I said in the headline. We need a day set aside for people to show their love for the scientists among us. And it might as well be on March 17, as St. Patrick’s Day is the worst thing to happen to the world since the formation of our universe.

[note: Maybe it’s just me, but I couldn’t help but think, when watching the beautiful video above, that someone could easily prank a distinguished scientist like this… How cruel would that be?]

If you’ve read this site for any length of time, you likely know how I feel about Ken Ham, the Australian ex-patriot (and accomplished charlatan) behind the evangelical anti-science group, Answers in Genesis, and Kentucky’s monument to stupidity, which he and his disciples refer to as the Creationism Museum. Well, I know that I’ve said before that I’d never willingly give Ham a dollar of my money so long as he’s actively engaged in intellectual child abuse (children are free at the museum in 2014, by they way, as part of Ham’s “Rescuing our Kids” campaign), but I’m tempted to drive down, buy a ticket and visit the his anti-intellectual evangelical Christian entertainment complex on February 4, when Ham will be debating evolution with Bill Nye. According to Ham, his 900 seat lecture hall sold out within two minutes of the event’s announcement a few days ago, but I have to think that I’d have a pretty good chance of sneaking past ushers who believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and our ancestors used to ride on the backs of friendly dinosaurs.

Personally, I’m not expecting the debate to be all that fruitful. I imagine that it’ll play out a lot like the debate I saw in the late ’80s between Larry Flynt and a televangelist on the subject of pornography. Both sides will say what you expect them to say. Both sides will get a few good, witty jabs in. Both sides will claim victory. And, in the end, no one in the audience will change their mind on the subject. Still, though, I think it would be something cool to experience, especially if Nye channels his anger and really comes out swinging. He’s not an evolutionary biologist, but, from what I’ve read, he knows a thing or two about the subject, and, like me, he seems to get genuinely pissed when people try to pass pseudo-science off as the real thing, especially to impressionable kids.

This whole thing was apparently set in motion a few years ago, when Nye took to the internet to express his view that “creationism is not appropriate for children.” Here’s the video.

“I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution, and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything that we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it, because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems.” -Bill Nye

“If we raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the process of science, who think everything that we’ve come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text,” Nye warned in a 2012 interview with the Associated Press, “(we’re) not going to continue to innovate.”

And he’s absolutely right. Those who want to keep fighting a battle that was already won about 90 years ago by Clarence Darrow, are doing nothing but holding our nation back and putting the future of the earth at risk. I would have thought that all of this nonsense would be behind us by now, but I guess it took a few hundred years for people to accept that the Earth orbits around the Sun, so it shouldn’t be any surprise that folks might take a while to accept the fact that human beings evolved. It’s only, after all, been about 185 years since Darwin’s voyage on the HMS Beagle. In the meantime, I guess we have no choice by to engage with the likes of Ham, and beg him to stop assaulting our children with his ludicrous notion that humans lived like the Flintstones a few thousand years ago.

Speaking of the Flintstones, I mentioned them in the title of this post as I didn’t know how else to frame the debate. I was looking for something with a nice ring to it, like “Rumble in the Jungle,” or “Thrilla in Manila,” but I just wasn’t having any luck. After considering both the “Evolution Resolution” and the “Creation Annihilation,” I settled on the “Flintstone Face-off,” as it made me the happiest.

It should be noted that a significant number of Christians believe in evolution… And, for what it’s worth, it should also be noted that Ken Ham hates them.

The following is from the Christian Post.

…Progressive Christians, or those who believe in evolution, are “more dangerous to Christianity than the atheists” are, says Creation Museum CEO and President Ken Ham. He made the argument in response to criticism that his insistence on Young Earth Creationism is driving believers away.

“Apparently they call this sort of thing ‘Progressive Christianity.’ I guess that means ‘evolving Christianity’ – whatever the secular world believes about where they came from, you accept that as infallible and then change their assumed fallible Word of God to fit! So sad,” Ham wrote on Facebook Friday, as he was responding to a critical post written about him in the “Unfundamentalist Christians” blog about his upcoming debate with “The Science Guy” Bill Nye in February…

And that, I think, is the best possible thing that could come of this debate. If nothing else, it might give the science-loving Christians of the world a little encouragement to stand up against this nonsense, and say with conviction that their faith is strong enough to coexist with reality. Evolution doesn’t mean there isn’t a god. It just means that the world is a lot more beautiful and intricate than we could have imagined.

[According to Ham, the event will be streamed live, and, after the fact, DVDs will be available for sale “to help offset significant costs in organizing and sponsoring the debate.”]

]]>http://markmaynard.com/2014/01/bill-nye-to-battle-ken-ham-in-the-flintstone-face-off/feed/44Celebrating the life… and evil lies… of Charles Darwinhttp://markmaynard.com/2013/01/celebrate-the-life-and-evil-lies-of-charles-darwin/
http://markmaynard.com/2013/01/celebrate-the-life-and-evil-lies-of-charles-darwin/#commentsTue, 29 Jan 2013 04:20:11 +0000http://markmaynard.com/?p=23208Had a vengeful God not struck him down for heresy, the famed naturalist Charles Darwin would be turning 204 years old on February 12, and literate folks around the world are marking the occasion by planning celebrations in his honor. I had forgotten that “Darwin Day” was upon us until earlier this evening, when a hilariously stupid internet fable concerning a Christian soldier who, thanks to God’s divine intervention, was able to drive a truck without an engine, was brought to my attention. (note: The original story has since been removed from the web, but a screen capture can be found here.) Well, one thing led to another, and I found myself on Reddit, catching up on the anti-science internet memes spread by those among us who believe that evolution, as articulated by Darwin, and perpetuated by liberal, God-hating academics, is pure evil. Here, for those of you who don’t have a crazy, tea-partying aunt to send you such things through Facebook, is one of my favorites.

A United States Marine was taking some college courses between assignments. He had completed 20 missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist, and a member of the ACLU.

One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, “GOD, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform… I’ll give you exactly 15 min.”

The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, “Here I am GOD, I’m still waiting.”

It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and hit him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.

The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently.

The other students were shocked and stunned, and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, “What in the world is the matter with you? Why did you do that?”

The Marine calmly replied, “GOD was too busy today protecting soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an idiot. So He sent me.”

The classroom erupted in cheers!

And, now, here’s a slightly improved version authored by someone on Reddit calling himself Grimster.

“Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Marx and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being that the world has ever known, even greater than Jesus Christ.”

At this moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life Navy SEAL champion who had served 1500 tours of duty and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by the United States stood up and held up a rock.

“Wrong. It’s been 5,000 years since God created it. If it was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real…. then it should be an animal now.”

The Professor was visibly shaken and dropped his copy of Origin of the Species. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears.

The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. An eagle named “Small Government” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk board. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country.

I’m sorry if that last piece is a bit of a distraction, but I couldn’t help myself… At any rate, I hope it doesn’t distract from the very serious fact that there are people in the world who, despite the fact that 150 years have passed since the publication of Origin of Species, are still fighting to keep scientific fact out of the classroom, as they fear that it may lead young Americans to question whether or not we’re really all the inbred descendants of two people who were plopped down by God into the Garden of Eden… among the friendlydinosaurs. Here, for those you who don’t believe that the threat is very much real, is a clip from Mother Jones.

In Texas public schools, children learn that the Bible provides scientific proof that Earth is 6,000 years old, that the origins of racial diversity trace back to a curse placed on Noah’s son, and that astronauts have discovered “a day missing in space” that corroborates biblical stories of the sun standing still.

These are some of the findings detailed in Reading, Writing & Religion II, a new report by the Texas Freedom Network that investigates how public schools in the Lone Star State promote religious fundamentalism under the guise of offering academic courses about the Bible. The report, written by Mark Chancey, a professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University, found that more than half of the state’s public-school Bible courses taught students to read the book from a specifically Christian theological perspective—a clear violation of rules governing the seperation of church and state.

Many school districts pushed specific strains of fundamentalism in the classes:

• “The Bible is the written word of God,” proclaims a slide shown to students in suburban Houston’s Klein Independent School District (ISD). Another slide adds: “The Bible is united in content because there is no contradictions [sic] in the writing. The reason for this is because that Bible is written under God’s direction and inspiration.”

• A PowerPoint slide in Brenham ISD in Central Texas claims that “Christ’s resurrection was an event that occurred in time and space—that is was, in reality, historical and not mythological.” (emphasis in original)

• In North Texas, Prosper ISD promotes the Rapture, claiming in course materials that “the first time the Lord gathered his people back was after the Babylonian captivity. The second time the Lord will gather his people back will be at the end of the age.”

Some Bible classes in Texas public school appear to double as “science” classes, circumventing limits placed on teaching creationism. Eastland ISD, a school district outside Fort Worth, shows videos produced by the Creation Evidence Museum, which claims to posess a fossil of a dinosaur footprint atop “a pristine human footprint.”

While I suspect that this isn’t the case in most Texas schools, it’s certainly something to be cognizant of, and fight against. And, if for no other reason than that, I think Darwin Day is a holiday worthy of our support. (Personally, I’d be happy to make it a “real” holiday. I know we can’t have too many federal holidays, but what if we agreed to give up Columbus Day in trade? I could totally get behind something like that.)

]]>http://markmaynard.com/2013/01/celebrate-the-life-and-evil-lies-of-charles-darwin/feed/37According to the new math of global warming, we’re as good as dead alreadyhttp://markmaynard.com/2012/07/sorry-to-bring-you-down-but-the-global-warming-math-doesnt-look-good/
http://markmaynard.com/2012/07/sorry-to-bring-you-down-but-the-global-warming-math-doesnt-look-good/#commentsFri, 20 Jul 2012 04:56:25 +0000http://markmaynard.com/?p=20082I think I may have neglected to mention it, but, a few months ago, while attending the Netroots Nation conference in Providence, I had the opportunity to meet environmentalist and author Bill McKibben. I’d like to say that we spoke, but, really, we just nodded at one another and said “hello.” He’d just come off stage, and chose to take a seat next to me. I suppose I should have taken the opportunity to engage him in a conversation about global warming, but, being painfully shy, I just sat there, wondering how much he weighed, and what he might say if I brought up the idea of armed revolution… Anyway, he has an article in the new issue of Rolling Stone that I wanted to let you know about. Here’s a clip.

…So far, we’ve raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.) Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target. “Any number much above one degree involves a gamble,” writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, “and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up.” Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank’s chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like this: “If we’re seeing what we’re seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much.” NASA scientist James Hansen, the planet’s most prominent climatologist, is even blunter: “The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster.” At the Copenhagen summit, a spokesman for small island nations warned that many would not survive a two-degree rise: “Some countries will flat-out disappear.” When delegates from developing nations were warned that two degrees would represent a “suicide pact” for drought-stricken Africa, many of them started chanting, “One degree, one Africa.”

Despite such well-founded misgivings, political realism bested scientific data, and the world settled on the two-degree target – indeed, it’s fair to say that it’s the only thing about climate change the world has settled on. All told, 167 countries responsible for more than 87 percent of the world’s carbon emissions have signed on to the Copenhagen Accord, endorsing the two-degree target. Only a few dozen countries have rejected it, including Kuwait, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Even the United Arab Emirates, which makes most of its money exporting oil and gas, signed on. The official position of planet Earth at the moment is that we can’t raise the temperature more than two degrees Celsius – it’s become the bottomest of bottom lines. Two degrees…

But, as McKibben goes on to say, all of the pieces are in place to drive us well past the two degree mark in no time. As he points out, many feel that the magic number is 565. That’s the number of gigatons of carbon that we can burn before we hit the two degree mark. The problem is, the world’s oil and coal companies, as of this very moment, own 2,795 gigatons of carbon, which they’re not willing to give up. It’s an asset that they own, and they damn well intend to use it. Here’s more from McKibben.

…Think of two degrees Celsius as the legal drinking limit – equivalent to the 0.08 blood-alcohol level below which you might get away with driving home. The 565 gigatons is how many drinks you could have and still stay below that limit – the six beers, say, you might consume in an evening. And the 2,795 gigatons? That’s the three 12-packs the fossil-fuel industry has on the table, already opened and ready to pour.

We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We’d have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate. Before we knew those numbers, our fate had been likely. Now, barring some massive intervention, it seems certain.

Yes, this coal and gas and oil is still technically in the soil. But it’s already economically aboveground – it’s figured into share prices, companies are borrowing money against it, nations are basing their budgets on the presumed returns from their patrimony. It explains why the big fossil-fuel companies have fought so hard to prevent the regulation of carbon dioxide – those reserves are their primary asset, the holding that gives their companies their value. It’s why they’ve worked so hard these past years to figure out how to unlock the oil in Canada’s tar sands, or how to drill miles beneath the sea, or how to frack the Appalachians.

If you told Exxon or Lukoil that, in order to avoid wrecking the climate, they couldn’t pump out their reserves, the value of their companies would plummet. John Fullerton, a former managing director at JP Morgan who now runs the Capital Institute, calculates that at today’s market value, those 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions are worth about $27 trillion. Which is to say, if you paid attention to the scientists and kept 80 percent of it underground, you’d be writing off $20 trillion in assets. The numbers aren’t exact, of course, but that carbon bubble makes the housing bubble look small by comparison. It won’t necessarily burst – we might well burn all that carbon, in which case investors will do fine. But if we do, the planet will crater. You can have a healthy fossil-fuel balance sheet, or a relatively healthy planet – but now that we know the numbers, it looks like you can’t have both. Do the math: 2,795 is five times 565. That’s how the story ends…

At this point, I was going to reiterate my global warming rant from a few days ago, but, thankfully, I found something better in a Metafilter thread about McKibben’s article. It comes from a fellow calling himself Ivan Fyodorovich. Here’s what he has to say. (WARNING: It’s not pretty.)

…I’m not happy telling you this, but this catastrophe will not be averted. There is nothing in human history that demonstrates that any such calamity will ever be avoided when the time-frame is this extended and remote (relative to normal human concerns), where the costs are distributed across large populations and not exclusively to those responsible, and where personal benefit so immediately accrues to both those responsible and everyone else as they fail avert the calamity.

Action will occur only when costs are direct, immediate, and large. And that will be far, far too late.

The Earth’s temperature will rise by at least five degrees C over the next 150 years. This will happen. It will kill billions of people, result in mass extinctions, destroy many of Earth’s ecosystems and alter the rest, utterly change global politics and economics in chaotic and militaristic fashion, and the survivors will probably curse our generation for the next thousand years. This is our future.